a warm wind

A warm wind blows

Across the prairies

Up the mountains

Through the valleys

Among the towers

The farther it goes

The warmer it gets

Until it ignites a spark

That builds an eternal flame

In the hearts of those who cherish

Political justice

Economic justice

Criminal justice

For all peoples

Of this land and the world

We’re the Justice Party

We’re running Rocky Anderson

For president and in the next election

We’ll run senators representatives

In states counties and cities

The naysayers say

You won’t hurt our

Democrats and Republicans

We’re the 1% we’ll outspend you

With our corporate and banker money

But they gave us Homeland Security

They gave us the Patriot Act

They gave us the NDAA

They trashed our Constitution

Yeah, we remember all that

We are the 99%

We cherish our Constitution

We cherish our liberties

We cherish our freedoms

We cherish justice for all

By J. Glenn Evans  Copyleft 2012 (Feel free to copy and distribute as broadly as possible)

Background information on the new Justice Party:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Troy Davis – we are all Troy Davis

Activists for a Better World in Seattle WA
JGE2@poetswest.com
http://www.poetswest.com
23 September 2011
J. Glenn Evans
TROY DAVIS
September 21, 2011 was a sad day in America and for the world. The leaders of the state of Georgia, the US Supreme Court and the President of the United States all had the power to declare a stay of execution until a determination of the guilt or innocence of Troy Davis could be made. Much evidence existed that this man was innocent when seven of the witnesses recanted their previous testimony against him, stating that they had been under police duress. It is a sad state of affairs when government leaders fail to act to save the life of a person where there was reasonable doubt of his guilt, even when thousands of people all over the world including many prominent former government officials pleaded for his life. Such leaders by their failure to act in prevention of a state murder forfeit their worthiness to serve in a responsible position in a free country. The citizens at the next election should replace them and that includes those with the power of impeachment of the Supreme Court for their failure to act in the prevention of this state criminal act. Let us not forget Troy Davis and let him be buried and forgotten. Remember him on Election Day and each September 21st when our nations honor was tarnished.
J. Glenn Evans
Copyleft 2011 J. Glenn Evans

stuck on stupid in dc

Vision: Van Jones At Power Shift 2011: ‘While They’re Stuck On Stupid In DC, Your Generation Is Rising’

In a passionate keynote address, green jobs leader Van Jones exhorted the 10,000 youth climate activists at the Power Shift conference in Washington DC to “shift the power” and lead the clean power revolution. He argued that both parties need to be held accountable for their failures, and that activists must explain that the climate movement isn’t just about “hippie power” but that it is a vision of liberty and justice for all. Van Jones had harsh words for the national  political establishment. “You have to be wise enough to hold both parties to high standards,” he said: While they’re stuck on stupid in DC, your generation is rising.  Van Jones also discussed President Barack Obama, who hired him as a green jobs adviser but then let him go after Jones’ politics and person came under a relentless barrage from Fox News’ Glenn Beck. Jones argued that President Obama is like the friend who has the potential to be an A-plus student, but is only getting C’s and D’s. Jones told the assembled youth from campuses around the nation they can be a “hero for making sure your  friend gets an A-plus on his presidency.” Van Jones described how we have a  civilization “fueled by death” — fossil fuels from plants and animals that died millions of years ago: We pull out of the ground death. We burn death in our power plants. Why do we get shocked when we get death in our sky as
global warming, death in our oceans as oil spills, death in our children’s lungs as asthma and cancer? The strongest moments of his speech came when he discussed America’s basic principles, in the context of arguing with “your uncle Joe” who watches Fox News at the Thanksgiving table. “Don’t you believe in liberty?” Van asked. “Shouldn’t we have the right as Americans to be  energy producers?” he asked. “Shouldn’t we have the right and liberty to be free from energy companies who dictate how much we pay, what air we breathe?” Coal and oil companies try to divide us with cultural stereotypes and political ideology, when a green economy is actually the truly American economy: The stereotype is that solar power is just hippie power. But it’s also cowboy power, farmer power, rancher power, and Appalachian mountain power!

 Van Jones addressed the Tea Party movement that sees him as a “terrorist” and “communist.” “I’m glad our sisters and brothers in the Tea Party are talking about liberty,” he said. However, he said,
they’re missing something important. The Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t just talk  about liberty being integral to our nation: The Pledge of Allegiance says  liberty and justice for all!

With his voiced raised to the diverse crowd, Van Jones said “justice for all” includes justice for minorities, justice for women, justice for gays, and justice for the poor. “Shift the power!” Van Jones concluded to thunderous applause.

By Brad Johnson | Sourced from ThinkProgress Posted at April 16, 2011, 10:05 am

big oil has never been about ethics

It will take more than rebranding to make tar sands oil “ethical”

Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant’s book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil.

The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the “ethical oil” argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.

To start, the logic is faulty. Just because a country or society is considered “ethical” does not mean everything it produces or exports is ethical. If we are going to delve into the ethics of the issue, we must look at the ethics of energy overall. That means considering the impacts of various energy systems on people and the environment.

Here, the science is troubling. It shows that the Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and are the country’s fastest growing source of emissions. To date, they have disturbed 600 square kilometres of boreal forest with little or no chance of true reclamation, use enormous amounts of water, and pollute the surrounding air and water.

This past summer, an independent, peer-reviewed scientific study showed that toxic byproducts from the tar sands extraction industry are poisoning the Athabasca River, putting downstream First Nations communities and the fish they eat at risk. Health studies show these First Nations communities already have elevated rare cancers associated with exposure to such toxins.

If this is the most “ethical” source of oil we can find, we need to ask other questions about the moral purity of our intensively processed bitumen. For example, if we sell the oil to countries with poor human-rights records, like China, does that affect the product’s “ethical” nature? And how “ethical” are the companies operating in the tar sands; for example, Exxon Mobil, well-known sponsor of climate-change disinformation campaigns; BP, responsible for last year’s massive oily disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; or PetroChina? There’s also the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on our children and grandchildren, which to me is an intergenerational crime.

In this light, wouldn’t energy from technologies or sources that limit the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and that have a minimal environmental and health impacts be far more ethical than fossil fuels? And, from an economic perspective, wouldn’t these more ethical technologies or fuel sources be doubly attractive to foreign buyers if they came from an “ethical” country like Canada?

As award-winning Alberta author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued, with proper development, the tar sands could help provide Canada with the oil and money we need to shift to a low-carbon economy. But major changes are needed. Environmental regulation and monitoring must be strengthened. Pollution and related health problems must be addressed. More of the revenue must go to Canadians rather than fossil fuel companies. And a national carbon tax would help us move from oil to less-polluting energy sources.

The problem is, no matter what Ezra Levant and his friends in government say, oil has never been about “ethics”. It has always been about money. Those who argue the case for “ethical oil” should work to ensure that our energy needs are met in a truly ethical way, now and into the future. In the end, the only truly ethical solution is to phase out oil. The black eye that tar sands oil is sporting can’t be remedied with meaningless phrases such as “ethical oil”.

To be seen as truly ethical when it comes to energy policy, Canada must slow down tar sands development, clean up the environmental problems, implement a national carbon tax, improve the regulatory and monitoring regime, and make sure that Canadians are reaping their fair share of the revenues. We must also start taking clean energy seriously. Rather than subsidizing the tar sands and all the fossil fuel industry through massive tax breaks, we should be investing in energy technologies that will benefit our health, economy, and climate.

It might also help if Canada’s environment minister spent more time protecting the environment rather than appeasing the oil industry and its apologists.

Enough bases to sink the world

The Pentagon’s Planet of Bases … (America’s Pentagon? Yes!)

India, a rising power, almost had one (but the Tajiks said no). China, which last year became the world’s second largest economy as well as the planet’s leading energy consumer, and is expanding abroad like mad (largely via trade and the power of the purse), still has none. The Russians have a few (in Central Asia where “the great game” is ongoing), as do those former colonial powers Great Britain and France, as do certain NATO countries in Afghanistan. Sooner or later, Japan may even have one.

All of them together — and maybe you’ve already guessed that I’m talking about military bases not on one’s own territory — add up to a relatively modest (if unknown) total. The U.S., on the other hand, has enough bases abroad to sink the world. You almost have the feeling that a single American mega-base like Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan could swallow them all up. It’s so large that a special Air Force “team” has to be assigned to it just to deal with the mail arriving every day, 360,000 pounds of it in November 2010 alone. At the same base, the U.S. has just spent $130 million building “a better gas station for aircraft… [a] new refueling system, which features a pair of 1.1-million gallon tanks and two miles of pipes.” Imagine that: two miles of pipes, thousands of miles from home — and that’s just to scratch the surface of Bagram’s enormity.

Spencer Ackerman of Wired’s Danger Room blog visited the base last August, found that construction was underway everywhere (think hundreds of millions of dollars more from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers), and wrote: “More notable than the overstuffed runways is the over-driven road. [The Western part of] Disney Drive, the main thoroughfare that rings the eight-square-mile base,[…] is a two-lane parking lot of Humvees, flamboyant cargo big-rigs from Pakistan known as jingle trucks, yellow DHL shipping vans, contractor vehicles, and mud-caked flatbeds. If the Navy could figure out a way to bring a littoral-combat ship to a landlocked country, it would idle on Disney.”

Serving 20,000 or more U.S. troops, and with the usual assortment of Burger Kings and Popeyes, the place is nothing short of a U.S. town, bustling in a way increasingly rare for actual American towns these days, part of a planetary military deployment of a sort never before seen in history. Yet, as various authors at this site have long noted, the staggering size, scope, and strangeness of all this is seldom considered, analyzed, or debated in the American mainstream. It’s a given, like the sun rising in the east. And yet, what exactly is that given? As Nick Turse, who has been following American basing plans for this site over the years, points out, it’s not as easy to answer that question as you might imagine.

Source: Tom Englehardt
http://www.tomdispatch.com/